If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The problem isn't race. It's idiots and guns. The majority of people that want guns to protect themselves are probably the least likely people to be responsible gun owners.

I'd like to see the stats for that. Millions of Americans like myself have guns for protection and have never fired a shot at anyone. If the media didn't blow this out proportion people could have a reasonable conversation about things. Trayvon jumped a guy that had a gun. Maybe he should have thought about that before he hit the guy.

For Mister Pittsburgh who believes the justice system is equitable and probably believes white people receive discriminatory treatment and blacks receive preferential treatment. Countless studies have proven blacks are more like to receive harsher sentences for similar crimes as whites and much more like to receive the death penalty for killing a white person as opposed to when a white person kills a black person. Right-wing people always like to cherry-pick one or two examples, but broad expanse of experience shows otherwise. [URL]http://www.alternet.org/story/62838/jena_six_case_shows_black_teens_get_short_end_of_s tick[/URL]
[URL]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-and-death-penalty[/URL]

I've volunteered in many prisons over the years and I have to admit in my own experience, no matter what level prison you are in, the white guys are usually a little scarier than the black dudes in a specific prison. ie. if you're in a medium security prison, odds are the white guy committed a more serious crime to get himself into the same prison as the black guy.

Also not sure if this is a cultural thing or not, but the Hispanic/Mexican guys in prison often seem way nicer and more respectful than the black or white guys.

Of course this is generalizing, but I've met enough prisoners over the years that this is fairly consistent. I really never thought about this before, but these articles kinda make sense from what I've seen firsthand. Of course I don't always know all the details, but I remember this one white guy that raped a child being in a low security prison while a black guy that committed the same crime was in a high security prison. I remember asking about it many years ago and they just told me it often came down to the specifics of a criminal/situation. So I figured there probably was just stuff I didn't know. But these articles make me wonder.

I'd like to see the stats for that. Millions of Americans like myself have guns for protection and have never fired a shot at anyone. If the media didn't blow this out proportion people could have a reasonable conversation about things. Trayvon jumped a guy that had a gun. Maybe he should have thought about that before he hit the guy.

So maybe you don't fall in the idiot category. I'm not really anti-gun as much as I'm anti-idiot. I think you're reading more into this than I was trying to say (writing is not my greatest skill sometimes). I was trying to say that a guy that wants to own a gun is probably more likely to use it faster than a guy that doesn't want to own a gun. Of course the majority of folks aren't gonna use the gun they keep locked in their home.

In this case a guy with a gun pursued the kid. Since he made the first move stalking him, I think the kid had a right to defend himself. Who knows what really happened here. Maybe it should be a crime for any guy carrying a gun to pursue another guy in the first place.

Just a side question - why do people buy guns for protection when Tasers are available and can serve the same purpose without killing someone? I can understand a gun for hunting where the aim is to kill something. But if someone just wants to protect themselves, there's ways to do that so you don't have to kill another person to protect yourself. I'm just curious about the logic.

So maybe you don't fall in the idiot category. I'm not really anti-gun as much as I'm anti-idiot. I think you're reading more into this than I was trying to say (writing is not my greatest skill sometimes). I was trying to say that a guy that wants to own a gun is probably more likely to use it faster than a guy that doesn't want to own a gun. Of course the majority of folks aren't gonna use the gun they keep locked in their home.

In this case a guy with a gun pursued the kid. Since he made the first move stalking him, I think the kid had a right to defend himself. Who knows what really happened here. Maybe it should be a crime for any guy carrying a gun to pursue another guy in the first place.

Just a side question - why do people buy guns for protection when Tasers are available and can serve the same purpose without killing someone? I can understand a gun for hunting where the aim is to kill something. But if someone just wants to protect themselves, there's ways to do that so you don't have to kill another person to protect yourself. I'm just curious about the logic.

I disagree with your assumptions about TM and Zimmer. Zimmer was in contact with 911 and lost sight of TM. The idea that Zimmer started the fight discounts all the evidence. Why would he fist fight a kid when he has a gun? Why does TM have no marks on him? TM told his friend on the phone that he had a creepy ass cracka following him. All the evidence says TM started the fight. Yes, Zimmer made the first move but TM threw the first punch.

As far as tasers go that works great when you are 1 on 1 and you have enough of them to keep the defendant zapped until the cops get there. What do you do if there are 3 guys? You don't have time to do all that. The obligation to keep the criminal alive is on the criminal NOT me. The fact is that with a gun I can make sure I'm safe. I don't have to worry about the guy shaking off a taser in a few minutes and coming after me again. Also a taser has limited range. Do you really think it is safe for a person to get closer to the criminal?

Again, people have the right to have guns and they work great for keeping homes safe. I don't understand why I have to endanger my family to protect the criminal.

I disagree with your assumptions about TM and Zimmer. Zimmer was in contact with 911 and lost sight of TM. The idea that Zimmer started the fight discounts all the evidence. Why would he fist fight a kid when he has a gun? Why does TM have no marks on him? TM told his friend on the phone that he had a creepy ass cracka following him. All the evidence says TM started the fight. Yes, Zimmer made the first move but TM threw the first punch.

As far as tasers go that works great when you are 1 on 1 and you have enough of them to keep the defendant zapped until the cops get there. What do you do if there are 3 guys? You don't have time to do all that. The obligation to keep the criminal alive is on the criminal NOT me. The fact is that with a gun I can make sure I'm safe. I don't have to worry about the guy shaking off a taser in a few minutes and coming after me again. Also a taser has limited range. Do you really think it is safe for a person to get closer to the criminal?

Again, people have the right to have guns and they work great for keeping homes safe. I don't understand why I have to endanger my family to protect the criminal.

My point was if GZ didn't pursue him, none of this happens. I'd say the punch could be considered self defense just as much as GZ's shot being self defense. Pursuing a kid with a gun on you doesn't seem normal/rational to me.

Thanks for explaining the taser vs gun. I never really considered 3 guys attacking me or the taser not being effective enough. You and your family should be safe. But it seems like there should be some way to do so besides shooting someone.

I can understand a gun for hunting where the aim is to kill something.

Here's a question about gun ownership & hunting..

If you only require the weapon for the occasions you go out hunting for wild animals, why can't the weapons be stored at a Police station & signed out to the owner once they request the weapon for the hunt? Keeping the weapon in your house, if it's just for hunting, makes no sense....

If you only require the weapon for the occasions you go out hunting for wild animals, why can't the weapons be stored at a Police station & signed out to the owner once they request the weapon for the hunt? Keeping the weapon in your house, if it's just for hunting, makes no sense....

You're kidding right? The U.S. has a constitution that says "the right to bear arms" shall not be infringed. Most people here that have guns don't just use them to hunt. We use them for self defense. The government doesn't have the right to ask citizens to keep their guns anywhere. It's none of their business because it is a "right".

Also to your point about being jumped by 8 guys (which is used just to set up a straw man). IF 8 guys came into the house they generally won't stay when they hear gun shots. I don't have to kill them all (even though I do use a 10 shot mag.). Which totally misses my point about the taser. The taser makes no sound and won't keep others from attacking. It is a fire and forget weapon. It only works once. Even if they see their friend getting tased they know the guys doesn't have a chest full of them so there is no reason to be afraid.

If you only require the weapon for the occasions you go out hunting for wild animals, why can't the weapons be stored at a Police station & signed out to the owner once they request the weapon for the hunt? Keeping the weapon in your house, if it's just for hunting, makes no sense....

No idea. I don't hunt. But I would think having your gun stored somewhere would be inconvenient.